Oral Answers to Questions

Gordon Brown: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the whole House will join me in sending our profound condolences to the family and friends of the three servicemen killed in Afghanistan in the past few days. They were Marines Neil Dunstan and Robert McKibben from the UK Landing Force Command Support Group, and Colour Sergeant Dura of the 2nd Battalion of the Royal Gurkha Rifles. We owe them and all those who have given their lives in conflict a huge debt of gratitude.
	I should like to make a statement on the Washington summit on financial markets and the world economy. This was the first ever G20 leaders' summit, which I attended this weekend with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In just over six months, the world has seen a 40 per cent. collapse in global share values, while global financial institutions have written off losses approaching £1,000 billion dollars and world oil prices have peaked at nearly $150 dollars a barrel and then sunk 60 per cent. We have seen a fall in global expectations for growth in the world's industrialised countries from 2.5 per cent. in 2007 to below zero for 2009, with all the impact that that has on families and businesses and all the worries about mortgages, jobs and family security in Britain and around the world.
	What is making this a fully worldwide crisis is that in recent weeks a problem that started in America has extended to emerging markets and developing countries, some of which are facing bankruptcy. These unprecedented global events call for unprecedented global action. While the economic problems of the 1970s created the G5 and then the G7, it is right that for the first time leaders from developed, emerging and developing economies, which are responsible for 85 per cent. of global growth, met and agreed on the urgency of common and concerted, and where appropriate co-ordinated, actions to address the financial and economic crisis.
	To put the long-term challenge in context, in the next 20 years it is expected that the world economy will double in size. This will mean a doubling of opportunities for British business and new opportunities for British workers and families. However, to make the transition to, and secure the benefits of, an open and inclusive globalisation, we have to deal with three other consequences that that brings. Those are, first, the need for restructuring of industries and services, not least resulting from the rise of Asia; secondly, increased competition for resources as long-term demand for oil, food and commodities from the newly emerging economies threatens to outstrip supply; and, thirdly, now that we have global flows of capital, the need to ensure a global framework for financial services as a precondition for prosperity and security.
	As epitomised by the sub-prime crisis, which started in America, at the root of the banking crisis was a failure by banks to manage risk, to understand increasingly opaque and complex financial products and to make transparent a developing shadow banking system— [ Interruption. ]

Gordon Brown: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
	In Washington, we agreed first of all fundamental reform of the way the financial system is supervised around the principles that Britain has been promoting. They are greater transparency, responsibility, integrity—to avoid conflicts of interest—better banking practice and international co-operation. That includes establishing international colleges of regulators; bringing transparency to tax havens by including them within the scope of the financial system; convergence of accounting standards; reviewing executive compensation schemes that encourage excessive and irresponsible risk-taking; full disclosure of toxic assets; and reform to end conflicts of interest in credit-rating agencies. We set a clear timetable, tasking our Finance Ministers to prepare immediate measures for implementation by 31 March, and to report back on progress with the full action plan at the next meeting.
	The summit also agreed that the recapitalisation of the banking system was the right course of action. The action that we have taken in the United Kingdom to buy shares in banks has now been followed in every continent of the world, and guarantees have been introduced to allow banks to raise the money needed to continue to support the real economy, as they must, through lending to businesses and families.
	We agreed that, against the background of economic conditions worldwide, a broader policy response was needed immediately, based on closer macro-economic co-operation. Importantly, we made it clear that, within our commitment to fiscal sustainability, the broad and international policy response would need to encompass both monetary and fiscal policy action. Although it is for independent central banks to make their own decisions, we recognised the importance of monetary policy to the restoration of growth. Some contended that it was impossible to cut interest rates in Britain for fiscal reasons, but, in fact, the Bank has now, in two successive months, made two cuts worth in total 2 per cent. and the Government have stated clearly that there is scope for further action. A measure of the level of international co-operation that has already resulted is the extensive currency swaps put in place between central banks and the co-ordinated cut in interest rates across Europe, Asia and America a few weeks ago.
	Crucially, and for the first time, our Washington statement agreed a broad and concerted international macro-economic policy response in fiscal policy, meaning measures to support families and businesses now. First, we agreed that fiscal policy has an essential role to play alongside monetary policy in sustaining demand, with quick-acting measures to encourage a rapid impact with help for households and businesses. Secondly, we agreed that the benefits of fiscal policy action will be greater for each country if all countries can act in a concerted way.
	This imperative is shared internationally. In recent days China, South Korea, Australia and Germany have joined other European countries, including Spain and France, in considering new fiscal stimulus packages. The European Union has already said that the flexibility in the stability and growth pact to recognise exceptional and temporary conditions will be used. President-elect Obama has already stated that a new fiscal stimulus package in the United States is both necessary and urgent. Most previously published forecasts have assumed the absence of co-ordinated fiscal action, but the downturn can be shorter and less deep if Britain takes action, and if that action is matched elsewhere.
	It is for individual countries to make their own announcements, as we will do in due course, but the more co-ordinated the action, the greater the benefit to each country will be. I believe that the emerging consensus across the world—from the International Monetary Fund itself, from Governments of left and right, and from political parties, with only a few exceptions, in developed and developing countries—is that we should take rapid, co-ordinated and concerted action through the use of budgetary measures.
	Over the past year, the central problem facing the global economy and the UK economy was inflation, driven by a sharp rise in international commodity prices and allied to a credit crunch, which left fewer options for Governments. This year, the reality is the sharp falls in commodity prices that are now taking place, while the credit crunch is leading to contractions in bank lending. The risk in this new environment is not stagflation but the impact on the economy of close-to-zero inflation at the time of a downturn, so it makes sense for Governments to support interest rate cuts with fiscal action. That is giving real help to families and businesses now, and I believe that, in addition to the announcements already made, we will see in the next few weeks many countries following with expansionary measures founded on that agreed international position.
	The third central message of the summit is that in taking action, we must resist all forms of protectionism. These threaten to slow down and eventually to stall world trade, thus denying us the benefits of one of the great engines of new growth. So, uniquely, all nations signed an agreement that over the next 12 months, they will resist pressure and refrain from raising new barriers to investment and trade. The key to confidence in open trade is, of course, the signing of the world trade agreement, on which talks have stalled since the summer. We cannot allow that impasse to continue, and I welcome today's new agreement—following Saturday's summit—to work towards a ministerial meeting in December. To ensure that the trade round is truly a development round that benefits the poorest countries, it will be accompanied by an agreed $4 billion aid-for-trade programme for infrastructure in developing countries. In discussing the issues facing poorer countries, the summit reaffirmed the importance of meeting the millennium development goals—an importance of applying the same common purpose to the challenge of alleviating poverty.
	Some have argued that as long as the trade talks remain deadlocked on specific issues, no deal can be agreed, but the G20 was explicit about the action that we have to take: for the first time we have instructed our Trade Ministers to agree, by the end of the year, the outlines needed for a successful conclusion to the Doha agreement.
	Finally, the G20 leaders have also agreed that the next summit will allow us to review, and to make decisions on, the wholesale reform of the international economic architecture—built in 1945 but no longer adequate for the challenges of 2008. In agreeing on the need for reform, we also set down the agreed changes that we believe are already essential: a greater voice and representation for emerging and developing countries; an urgent expansion, with broader membership, of the Financial Stability Forum; and, better identification of vulnerabilities and anticipation of potential stresses, with swifter action in crisis response.
	The International Monetary Fund's ability to assist countries facing problems as a result of the current shock depends on its reserves of $250 billion. We welcome the announcement from Japan to lend up to $100 billion, but that may not be enough, and we agreed to review the IMF's facilities to ensure that it has the flexibility to give countries the help that they need. The World Bank agreed that it would make new commitments of up to $100 billion over the next three years to protect the newest, the poorest and most vulnerable countries, and $30 billion of new facilities specifically to help address the problems faced by the private sector, including recapitalising banks and providing trade finance.
	At this unique moment in our economic history, we are seeing the world come together to find global solutions to what are the global problems that we face. Over the next few weeks and following consultation, Britain, as the incoming chair of the G20, will lead the preparations for the next summit, working alongside past and future chairs. We will set out the schedule of events, meetings and papers that will take us to the next conference, the date and venue of which will be announced next week. In the run-up to the conference, we will monitor, following the recapitalisation of banks, the barriers to the resumption of funding, because this summit and the meetings that will follow are about the real challenges of everyday life: the need for people to have confidence in the banks that hold their savings and their mortgages; and, the need to know that everything is possible is being done to help them in their jobs. We pledge that with national and international action together—real help in difficult times—we will take people fairly through this downturn. I commend this statement to the House.

David Cameron: I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Colour Sergeant Dura and to Marines Neil Dunstan and Robert McKibben, who were all killed in Afghanistan. As the Prime Minister said, they were serving our country, and we honour their memory.
	Everyone welcomes the fact that the summit was of the full G20, involving countries such as Brazil, India and China. It discussed the immediate response to the recession and proposals for the longer term. I shall start with the longer-term reforms. On trade, after so many false dawns, does the Prime Minister believe that this time there is a real prospect of agreement on Doha? On financial reform, there are the Basel accords, which govern bank lending. For a year, we have been arguing that the rules should be made counter-cyclical, but does the Prime Minister agree with me that international action should be combined with action at home, such as the debt responsibility mechanism that we have proposed for the Bank of England to call time on debt? On international institutions such as the IMF, does the Prime Minister agree with me that genuinely sharing global leadership with countries such as India and China means giving them a larger say in how these organisations are run?
	The section in the communiqué on the IMF includes talk of early warnings. Is it not also vital that countries listen to the warnings that they are given? The IMF warned Britain last year that household debt was rising rapidly, that our financial institutions were vulnerable and that, as a result, we faced a potentially severe impact. In future, will the Prime Minister listen to these warnings?
	Next there is the failure of the regulatory system, particularly concerning credit rating agencies and complex derivatives. The G20 rightly talks about the importance of co-operation, but can the Prime Minister be clear about what is actually proposed? It does not mean detailed international regulation, but international co-operation over regulation. The G20 communiqué rightly states explicitly:
	"Regulation is first and foremost the responsibility of national regulators".
	It is quite damning about national failure. It says—this is the communiqué that the Prime Minister signed up to—that
	"some policy makes did not adequately appreciate and address the risks building up in financial markets, keep pace with financial innovation, or take into account the systemic ramifications of domestic regulatory actions."
	For the past 10 years, the Prime Minister was the economic policy maker in Britain, so what responsibility does he take for those failings here?
	I turn to the recession, about which the Prime Minister makes two claims. The first claim is that Britain's economic situation is all imported from abroad. He has said that it started in America so many times that it is starting to sound ridiculous. Can he answer this—[Hon. Members: "It's true."] If it is true, he is going to have to answer this question. If Britain is so well prepared, can he explain why the IMF believes that the British economy will shrink faster next year than any major economy in the world? Can he explain why the European Commission says that we face a deeper recession next year than anywhere in the EU except for Estonia and Latvia? Far from being well prepared, Britain faces a deep recession. Is that not why in the past few months our currency has fallen more sharply than any major currency and more sharply than ever before in our recent history?
	"A weak currency arises from a weak economy which in turn is the result of a weak Government"—
	 [Interruption.] I do not know why the hon. Gentleman is pointing at me; that was not my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) this week, but the Prime Minister when he was shadow Chancellor. As the hon. Gentleman was talking, I shall read the quote again. It says that
	"a weak currency arises from a weak economy which in turn is the result of a weak Government"—
	 [Interruption.] I am so pleased to have made the Prime Minister smile.
	The Prime Minister's second claim is that there is universal support for a fiscal stimulus paid for by additional borrowing. Yet of the 3,500 words in the G20 communiqué, just 21 were about the fiscal stimulus, and they included the condition that the stimulus should be "appropriate" and "conducive to fiscal sustainability". The real international consensus is that only the countries that have been fiscally responsible are best placed to act now. Is that not why the OECD recommended a fiscal stimulus for those countries that had consolidated their public finances? Is that not why the European Central Bank said that if a country has borrowed more than 3 per cent.—as we have done—it should not borrow even more? Even this weekend, what the head of the IMF actually said is that a fiscal stimulus should take place only
	"where it is possible...where you have some room concerning debt sustainability."
	How can our Government claim that our debt is sustainable when our borrowing this year, before the recession has properly started, is among the highest in the developed world, and when we have just spent £40 billion on a bank rescue?
	The Prime Minister keeps citing China, but China, like Spain, the Netherlands, and Australia—like half the OECD, in fact—has a budget surplus. In Britain, our Prime Minister used the good years to build up the biggest budget deficit in the industrialised world. Is that not why, in Britain, more discretionary borrowing now, without knowing where the money is coming from, is bound to mean higher taxes later? Is that not what the Employment Minister admitted last Tuesday? Is that not what the Chancellor admitted last Wednesday? Is that not what the Business Secretary, not known for admitting anything, admitted this morning, when he talked about
	"a medium term adjustment some years ahead"
	and a
	"structural adjustment later on".
	Translated into English, does that not mean higher taxes under Labour?
	Is it not the case that Labour's borrowing bombshell will soon become a tax bombshell? Let us be absolutely clear about what this means: borrowing £30 billion now will mean an income tax bill for the average earner of nearly £1,500 later. Everyone knows the Prime Minister is planning a Christmas tax giveaway, but tax cuts should be for life, not just for Christmas. We need real tax cuts, not Labour tax cons.
	Just two years ago, the Prime Minister said:
	"No political party will be trusted if it promises stability in one breath and unfunded tax cuts in the next".
	Let me remind him of what he said. He pledged solemnly:
	"To make unfunded promises, to play fast and loose with stability... is... something I will never do and the British people will not accept."
	So now that he has broken that promise—now that he is promising a borrowing bombshell—will he start his response by being straight with the British people? Will he admit that by borrowing more now, he will have to tax more later? Just for once in his life, can he give us a straight answer—do not his borrowing plans today mean higher taxes tomorrow?

Nicholas Clegg: I would like to add my own expressions of sympathy and condolence to the family and friends of Colour Sergeant Dura and Marines Neil Dunstan and Robert McKibben who tragically lost their lives in Afghanistan this week.
	I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. I, too, think that it was good that this was a G20 summit, which included new powers such as India, China, Brazil and others. I hope that that will be a precedent for the future because global governance can no longer be a stitch-up of the old powers alone.
	I also strongly agree with the Prime Minister' words on the danger of protectionism. The lesson from the 1930s is indeed that narrow nationalism and trade barriers will only make matters worse. Speaking as one who was at the inception of the Doha development round in 2001, I feel strongly that we must seek to trade our way out of this recession.
	British exports, of course, will be boosted after the recent fall in the value of the pound after a long period of over-valuation. In my opinion, the shadow Chancellor was well within his own rights to talk about the falling pound, even if he made almost no sense at all. Does the Prime Minister agree that this sudden desire for currency stability is a bizarre U-turn from a party that once referred to the euro as a "toilet paper currency"?
	The Prime Minister spoke a great deal today about a fiscal stimulus, and it is rumoured that he wants to borrow money for a temporary tax rebate. In my view, it is right to give money back to people on low and middle incomes who are more likely to spend some of that money, but instead of borrowing for a one-off tax cut, the Prime Minister could pay for a big permanent tax cut by ending unfair loopholes for the very wealthy. Would not that be fair? The right thing to borrow for is not short-term cash bribes, but long-term capital investment in infrastructure that the country needs in any case. Does he agree that extra borrowing can be justified only to fund green energy, sustainable transport and the homes we need for a sustainable economic recovery.
	The Prime Minister still seems incapable of differentiating between good public spending and bad public spending. Why in the teeth of this recession, does he still want to waste £13 billion of the public's money on an NHS computer system that will not work, £12 billion of it on a surveillance database that no one wants and £5 billion on ID cards that no one needs?
	I know that in the past the Prime Minister has struggled to distinguish between cutting public spending and redirecting it as we want, but will he now accept that my party's plans to redirect wasteful spending to things that people really need in a recession—such as homes, child care, education, training and fairer taxes—is the right thing to do?
	The Prime Minister has spent several weeks jetting around the world. Will he now focus on three key steps that will help people here at home: permanent fairer taxes, borrowing only for long-term investment, and redirecting public spending towards the things that people really need in a recession?

Gordon Brown: The first thing that I should say to the hon. Gentleman is that it is important that we do not cut capital investment at this time. The capital investment that we are making in homes, education, the health service and the environmental technologies of this country is capital investment that we will continue. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to support us when we say that it would be totally wrong, at a time when we are preparing for the next stage of the world economy, to cut capital investment in those areas.
	I must also say to the hon. Gentleman that we have removed tax loopholes in every Budget since 1997, including the loopholes removed by the Chancellor in the last Budget. I see no evidence from my reading of the Liberal Democrats' policy document that they can find the billions that they say are to be found in the cutting of tax loopholes, and I believe that, when subjected to rigorous examination, their policy once again does not stand up.
	I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that if he cuts public expenditure and says that that constitutes savings, as he is doing, he is still cutting public expenditure by £20 billion.

Gordon Brown: In the heat of the summer, to gain a bit of publicity, the shadow Chancellor announced that he had a fuel duty stabiliser. The problem with the fuel duty stabiliser is that the minute petrol prices fell to 97p a litre, the right hon. Gentleman would have been bound to put the price up by 5p a litre. I do not think that, even with his bluster, he can deny that that is the case.
	This is just one of the Conservative ideas that were launched in the morning, were found wanting in the afternoon, and are never talked about now. The right hon. Gentleman had exactly the same problem with his proposed employment measures last week. His proposal to spend £2.5 billion on employment, one of the biggest outlays of public expenditure, was rejected by the Federation of Small Businesses as a disincentive. I think that the Conservatives will have to go back to the drawing board, but I do not think that the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), who lost them the 2001 and 2005 election, will be of much help to them.

Kenneth Clarke: Will the Prime Minister not confess that he went to the summit to obtain cover for the short-term borrowing on which he intends to embark as much for electoral as for economic reasons? Will he not accept that the summit statement stresses debt sustainability, which he noticeably omitted from all his own statements, and that if he goes ahead with adding to the level of debt that will, I hope, be revealed in full next Monday, he will merely build up impossible problems for the Government who must follow, and must sort out the mess that he has created over the 10 years of his stewardship?

Gordon Brown: When the right hon. and learned Gentleman was Chancellor, debt was 44 per cent. of GDP. At the moment, according to the IMF, it is 37 per cent. of GDP. That is debt sustainability: it means that we can build on a level of debt that is lower than the 1997 level to take the action that is necessary.
	I went to the summit because, unlike the Conservatives, I believe that co-ordinated international action is possible. I believe that we can work with the rest of Europe and the rest of the world to take specific and decisive action to deal with the financial crisis, and I believe that we can work together not just on financial-sector reform but on fiscal policy.
	Despite saying a few weeks ago that borrowing was necessary, the leader of the Opposition has today set his face against the fiscal stimulus that is necessary in this economy and other economies. He will find himself outnumbered by every major country in the world. He will find that America will have a fiscal stimulus in the next few months; he will find that the rest of the European Union will also agree to a fiscal stimulus; and he will find that the rest of the world will want that to happen. But if the Conservative party has not woken up to the fact that we have near-to-zero inflation coming up next year, and that fiscal stimulus is the necessary way in which to get around it, I do not think that the party will ever begin to understand the modern economy.

Iain Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister may recall that when he was in opposition he used to say that the strength of a currency was a reflection of the strength of its economy. Notwithstanding the fact that world is going into recession, does he not think that the precipitant fall in sterling is down to the fact that the international community believes that we enter this recession in a worse state than almost anybody else?

Gordon Brown: Now, we have a new position from the Conservative party, which I think that people will reflect on: the recession has to take its course and nothing can be done about it. We have heard three positions from the Conservative party: the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell) says that there has to be fiscal action; the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) says that nothing can be done; and those on the Front Bench are dreaming up initiatives every day, all of which fail before they even reach the scrutiny of the afternoon. The Conservative party will have to think about whether it has a responsible economic policy at all.

Laura Moffatt: Many people around the world know that the measures being taken today are to defend their jobs and ensure that they have a future. For small businesses in the UK, that is incredibly important so will my right hon. Friend in his leadership of the G20 take them the message that small businesses in the UK and around the world are the backbone of our economies and need to be supported? What will he do to support them around the world?

William Cash: The Prime Minister noticeably did not answer the question that was just put about action at EU level. He answered only in the international context. During the statement, he repeatedly used the word "coordination" when in fact the declaration on the summit repeatedly uses the word "co-operation". He knows perfectly well what the difference is—at least I think he does—so will he please tell us?

Brian Binley: The Prime Minister talks about jobs in this country, yet for 11 years he has added £66 billion to the burden for businesses in this country through regulation and additional costs. That is the burden that business is facing and that is what he can do something about, but he fails to do so. I challenge him today not to go ahead with the 1 per cent. increase in corporation tax due to come into effect next April, on the basis that business needs all the money it can get to protect the jobs it is providing at this very moment.

Jim Knight: My hon. Friend must be careful to be fully cognisant of the whole range of independent schools, not only those that might be members of the Independent Schools Council, for example. The Charity Commission is ensuring that independent schools that have charitable status are earning it, and I am happy to see the difference that the new head of the commission is making in that regard.
	There may also be a very small number of cases in which an institution, having paid fees in advance, closes before the periodic inspection takes place. Amendment No. 81 contains a power that will allow fees paid in such cases not to be refunded. This policy is to prevent institutions from exploiting the system by temporarily closing before an inspection is due. If refunds were made, institutions could then apply to re-register and pay only the initial registration fee, which we propose would be £500. In the majority of cases, that sum would be considerably lower than the fees refunded. There would be nothing to stop an institution continuing to exploit the system indefinitely if refunds were allowed.
	I should reiterate that overall we intend the use the powers in order to set fees that are no higher than is necessary to recover some or all of the costs associated with inspections. I hope that with that clarification the House will be happy to approve the motion.
	 Question put and agreed to.

Nick Gibb: I am grateful to the Minister for that clear explanation of the group of Lords amendments. He cited the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution, but I do not believe that he mentioned the letter of 11 June from my noble Friend Lord Goodlad.
	Given that Lord Goodlad was a former Chief Whip in this House, I was already convinced that everything he said in that letter was true. However, I was even more convinced once I had read it. Lord Goodlad makes the important point of principle that
	"where the executive branch of government is given powers to impose penalties, minimum standards of administrative justice should be in place to safeguard people from wrongful impositions of demands for compliance or payment of financial penalties (whether because of a factual mistake or legal error on the part of the public authority). "
	He refers to the common law principle of audi alteram partem. As one of the last generation of state-educated pupils to learn Latin, I can tell the Minister that that means "Hear the other side." It leads Lord Goodlad to ask why the Bill contains no express obligation to hear the employer's side of events before a compliance or penalty notice is imposed. He goes on to ask, in English, why the Bill contains no express provision for reviewing enforcement and penalty notices.
	The next matter of concern that my noble Friend raised relates to appeals. He said:
	"In situations where an executive branch of government is empowered to impose sanctions, especially financial penalties, it is of great importance that accused persons have access to an independent court to question the legality of a penalty."
	Lord Adonis, in his response of 1 July, replied that, as the fine would be a civil penalty, recoverable through the country court, the employer would have the opportunity to put his case and effectively provide an appeal. However, Lord Goodlad said:
	"We believe that as a matter of principle there ought to be express provision for an appeal to enable the person subject to a penalty to challenge the factual and legal basis on which the penalty has been imposed."
	He went on to cite the express appeals provision in clause 39 of the Pensions Bill, which creates a right of appeal to a tribunal.
	Lord Adonis's response was:
	"We did not think it desirable to provide for rights of appeal because this would mean establishing a new body to hear such appeals. Unlike the Pensions Bill where there is a natural body to hear appeals (the Pensions Regulator Tribunal) we would have to create a new independent body to hear such appeals which did not seem justified in the circumstances".
	It is therefore slightly odd that the amendments, especially amendment No. 4, create an appeal to the first-tier tribunal.
	Conservative Members agree that, following the letter from the Select Committee, it is important to provide a right of appeal. However, it would be helpful if the Minister explained the discrepancy between the point in Lord Adonis's letter that a new body would have to be established, and the amendment, which states that the appeal is to be made to first-tier tribunal. Which first-tier tribunal? Lady Morgan, the Minister in another place, provides no explanation. Perhaps the Minister could let us know during the debate.
	I am baffled—as a result, I am sure, of my ignorance of the new arrangements for the tribunal service—about which of the various chambers and tribunals an appeal could be made to. Would it be to the social entitlement chamber, which covers the asylum support tribunal, the social security and child support appeals tribunal and the criminal injuries compensation appeals panel? Would it be to the war pensions and armed forces compensation chamber? The most likely candidate is the health, education and social care chamber.

Jim Knight: Let me relieve the hon. Gentleman of his pain. The appeals would be heard by a general regulatory chamber of the first tier. One of the aims and advantages of the new tribunal system is to avoid having a multitude of small chambers. Given the small number of appeals likely, we do not think we need a chamber specifically for such appeals.

Jim Knight: We will return to those points in the next set of amendments, so I will deal with them then, rather than now.
	I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) for pointing out Lord Goodlad's letter and the importance of audi alteram partem, meaning "Hear the other side", which is what we have been doing throughout the process in the Lords. We will be debating the various ways in which we have been listening to the other side throughout today's debate.
	The hon. Gentleman underlined the reasons why we believe that the principle of having appeal is right, on reflection. I believe that I answered his question on the first tier of the new tribunals system that is in place thanks to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. To some extent, when the Bill was originally drafted and scrutinised in the Commons, the measures that are now in place in respect of that Act were not in place. It is therefore appropriate that we now take cognisance of them.
	The hon. Gentleman asked questions about civil versus criminal sanctions. I suspect that when we deal with the next set of amendments, we will probe in a little more detail whether criminal sanctions are appropriate for young people on top of the range of things that are in place to encourage them to participate. However, in respect of employers, it is appropriate that we have civil and not criminal sanctions. The enforcement system for employers is not criminal. It culminates in a financial penalty that is recoverable through county courts, in which employers have the opportunity to present things from their perspective having used the right of appeal, if they so wish. That is appropriate, and we will discuss in a minute whether or not the measures for young people are appropriate. In essence, as the hon. Gentleman knows because we have discussed the matter at some length both in the Chamber, in Committee and in private, I believe that the youth court, because it is specifically designed to deal with training and sanctions for young people, is the appropriate body to deal with those matters for young people.
	On the basis of those explanations, which I hope are adequate, I hope that the House will support the amendment.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendments 2 to 23  agreed to [Special Entry.]

Jim Knight: I welcome this second group of amendments that were made in the other place and I believe that we therefore have a stronger, fuller and better Bill. This group makes further refinements to the support and enforcement system for young people, which is probably the most controversial and debated aspect of the Bill.
	Amendment No. 40 enables a local authority to enter into learning and support agreements with young people. In a learning and support agreement, the local authority would agree to provide support and learning activity, and the young person would agree to comply with certain requirements. The young person must be involved in the process of identifying their needs and the best way to address them, and in negotiating the requirements that they in turn agree to stick to. That something-for-something approach is the model for our activity and agreement pilots aimed at 16 and 17-year-olds who are not in employment, education or training—or NEET—the evaluation of which will report fully later on in the year. Early signs are very promising that it is an effective approach to which young people respond positively. When we debated learning agreements in this House, I always said that they were best practice.
	Contracts or agreements are also widely used by voluntary sector organisations, such as Banardo's and Rainer, in their programmes to support young people's transition back to formal learning. The idea is popular with young people. Learning and support contracts serve to emphasise that both the local authority and the young person have responsibilities, and I hope that the House will support the amendment.
	Amendment No. 24 is a minor amendment that makes it clear, for the avoidance of doubt, that where a variation is made to an attendance notice, as provided for under clause 44, all the requirements about the description of education or training in the notice apply as they did to the original notice. So the education or training must satisfy the central duty to participate, be suitable for the young person and so on.
	Lords amendments Nos. 25 and 26 give effect to another recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The amendments would ensure that the amount set in regulations for the financial penalty to be given to a young person could never exceed the maximum fine that a young person could receive in a youth court, which is currently £200. We have already said that, in practice, the financial penalty for young people would be significantly less than that figure, and I am grateful to the Committee for its careful scrutiny of the Bill.
	On amendments Nos. 27 to 31, 173, 178, 179 and 211, the Government believe that very few young people will reach the enforcement process, and I hope that very few—if not none—will reach the very end of it. If a young person fails to participate, a local authority must engage with them, find them an option that suits them and help them to take up learning again. Even after enforcement action has been formally started, there will be a process of administrative sanctions, support and dialogue with a young person before they can reach the youth court.
	I remind the House that the local authority needs to engage with the young person and offer them appropriate learning and support. If that is not taken up, a formal offer will be made, followed by an attendance notice, and if that does not work, the matter will go to the attendance panel. In turn, if the young person still fails to engage after that fourth stage, a fixed penalty notice will be issued by the local authority to avoid the need to enforce the matter through the courts. If the young person then fails to pay the fixed penalty notice, there is a right to appeal to the attendance panel. It is only then, if the attendance panel agrees with and confirms the need for the notice, that the matter goes to the youth court. That is at the end of a very long process with many stages, and if a young person re-engages in learning or has a reasonable excuse at any one of those stages, all enforcement action will cease.

David Laws: I know that the Minister will be disappointed if I do not speak to this group of amendments, especially when doing so gives me an opportunity to praise my colleagues in the other place. I believe that they were the moving force behind Lords amendments Nos. 40 and 32. I shall not detain the House too long, as the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) has already done a comprehensive job in speaking to this group. I am sure that the Prince of Wales will be moved by the hon. Gentleman's tribute to him, just as we are all are moved by the hon. Gentleman's modesty. Most of us here thought that the hon. Gentleman was the greatest living Briton, so it was remarkably generous for him to give the accolade to someone else.
	Let me deal first with Lords amendment No. 40, which introduces what the Government now call learning and support agreements. Those agreements sound remarkably similar to the learning and support contracts that my party sought to include in the Bill, and which I believe have Conservative support. I would be interested to hear from the Minister what was convincing about the learning and support agreements that was not similarly convincing in respect of the learning and support contracts.
	The Minister will recall from earlier discussions on this issue, to which we returned on a number of occasions, that one of our concerns was that there should be an alternative to being in education and training for young people who really needed support for a period, perhaps on account of mental or general health issues, family issues and so forth. The Minister included some of those issues in a letter to me, which helped me to anticipate the Government's thinking.
	Will the Minister clarify precisely when and how the learning and support agreements will be used? Our hope all along was that they could be used in place of education and training in circumstances where it was difficult, because of other problems, to get a young person to engage in education and training. I am still somewhat unclear from Lords amendment No. 40 about the precise circumstances in which the learning and support agreements could be used. Subsection (4) of the new clause set out in the amendment states:
	"The learning and support agreement must include provision (whether or not in the form of a learning and support condition) relating to the young person's participation in education or training."
	Does that mean, as I fear it may, that the learning and support agreements are to be used only to support a young person who must be in education and training at the same time as engaging in the agreement, or does the Minister envisage the possibility of a young person, with the agreement of the local authority, being in a learning and support agreement that provided the sort of support necessary for going into education and training, but before formally engaging in the education and training that were previously a condition and requirement of the Bill? Clarification on that point would be helpful.
	We also welcome the Government's attempts to avoid the custodial option for young people against whom enforcement action is being taken under the Bill. That obviously goes nowhere near as far as we would like, because of our fundamental concerns about the Bill. We continue to worry about the effect of taking this enforcement action against young people who may not be complying—in some cases, for perfectly good reasons—with the measures in the Bill. Removing the custodial option is very welcome indeed.
	Ministers made a further concession to my excellent colleagues in the other place regarding Lords amendment No. 32, which promises a review in 2016. That might seem a somewhat modest achievement, but we hold out the hope that the review may cause the Government at least to rethink if serious problems come to light in the policy of applying criminal standards to young people for failing to comply with education and training requirements. The explanatory notes suggest that, as the Minister indicated earlier, the report is to be made in 2016, but I may have missed some detail that clarifies that that is a certainty.
	I note, however, that the proposed subsection (2) set out in Lords amendment No. 32 states:
	"The person appointed must make a report to the Secretary of State on the review within a reasonable period after the school leaving date for 2016."
	Have the Government already determined that "a reasonable period" means that the review will take place in 2016? Given the description in the explanatory notes of the type of review that the Government envisage, will the Minister put it on record that there is nothing to prevent the review's conclusions from leading to a fundamental rethink by the Government about the policy of applying a criminal standard to young people who fail to comply with education and training requirements?
	The amendments fall a long way short of what we would really like to see in the Bill, but they are welcome concessions none the less, and we hope that after the Minister has spoken we shall be able to welcome them even more warmly.

Bob Spink: This is indeed a controversial set of amendments. Of course we all want to improve the life chances of 16 and 17-year-olds, but it is best to do that by means of inspiration and the creation of opportunities for them, rather than by means of compulsion. There are enough ways in which youngsters in that age group can get into trouble without our creating yet another. That smacks of unnecessary interference in people's lives, bigger government and the nanny state. I am surprised at the attitude of Opposition Front Benchers to the amendments, and also at the lack of interest in them; very few Members are present to debate them.
	I have not yet heard how many administrators and other additional staff will be needed to police the new system, what the cost will be, and how we will stop local authorities and others from doing what they do in this country—gold-plating the regulations, and taking them rather further than the House expects them to be taken. We have heard little about how we will prevent the youth courts from becoming bottled up if that happens. The Minister said that very few cases would end up in the youth courts, but we have heard such undertakings in this place before, and quite the contrary turns out to be the case when the laws are rolled out. We have not been told how, in the last resort, the payment of fines will be enforced. Unless a sanction is enforceable, it will be meaningless. As was stated by both Front-Bench spokesmen, there will be micky-takers in the system.
	We do not need this nanny-state measure. What we do need is the provision of real opportunity and inspiration for young people. We must provide ladders so that when they reach an age at which they decide that they want to acquire skills and education they are able to do so, rather than enacting measures to criminalise them.
	My constituency contains six secondary schools that will need to increase their capacity considerably because of the additional participation of people aged between 16 and 18. Four of them are oversubscribed. There are waiting lists, and people are turned away. People write to me every week asking how they can get their kids into those four schools. However, Essex county council is closing one of them, and is allowing the borough council to sell the school playing field so that hundreds more houses can be built. What will the Minister do to ensure that resources are available to enable children in that age group to take advantage of further education?
	Some of those questions really do need to be addressed. I strongly believe that the Minister should think again before criminalising young people.

Jim Knight: What an interesting debate—it reminded me of the Second Reading debate of all those months ago. I am not going to get distracted by the new Tory party policy on who the greatest living Briton is, but I certainly join the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) in wishing His Royal Highness a happy 60th birthday.
	The hon. Gentleman raised questions associated with absence and what he would call truancy rates. I remind him that, by the end of spring 2007, the absence rate stood at 6.44 per cent., on track for a rate for the year as a whole of 6.5 per cent.—the lowest on record. In secondary schools, overall absence fell to 7.76 per cent. in the first two terms of 2006-07, compared with 8.16 per cent. for the comparable period in the year before and 9.07 per cent. in the whole of 1996-97. We certainly take no lessons from the Conservative party in respect of truancy.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned people who are not in education, employment or training—NEETs—and I shall deal with that point in a short while. He also discussed the views of stakeholders on compulsion and enforcement. I do not argue with his version of events in respect of the witnesses who came before the Public Bill Committee, because there were certainly those who disagreed with compulsion, but I remind him that some agreed with it.
	The chief executive of Barnado's, Martin Narey, told us that
	"ultimately, after all the safeguards within the Bill"—
	that is an important point—
	"our position is that we support compulsion as a means of ensuring that the most disadvantaged young people have their horizons broadened and are prepared for a world of work, rather than a world of benefits and long-term poverty." ——[ Official Report, Education and Skills Public Bill Committee, 22 January 2008; c. 4. Q1.]
	He went on to say all sorts of wise and helpful things.
	Even the National Union of Teachers said:
	"The impact of saying, 'This is now our expectation', will move everything forward. The penalty is a minor issue." ——[ Official Report, Education and Skills Public Bill Committee, 24 January 2008; c. 137. Q321.]
	In addition, the Prince's Trust, the very organisation to which the hon. Gentleman referred stated:
	"If you make it compulsory and you put in adequate resources...then it would make a big difference because, yes, you would get that shift on the ground." ——[ Official Report, Education and Skills Public Bill Committee, 22 January 2008; c. 21. Q52.]
	This policy seeks to create that shift on the ground.
	We agree with the Association of School and College Leaders that we are after persuasion rather than coercion, but we do not rule out coercion, at the end of the road, as a way of galvanising the whole system around children and, in particular, the journey that the current year 7s are going through as the first cohort to which this will apply. The fact that they know that they will not drop out and will stay on, and that everyone who works with them knows that that will be the case, will have a hugely galvanising effect on the whole system—it is certainly having a galvanising effect on my Department. Of course, enforcement is the last resort—it must always be the last resort. I set out all the stages of enforcement showing that enforcement and, in turn, any form of criminalisation, is very much the last resort. As I have said, I hope that that is never needed.

Jim Knight: The agreement, as it is an agreement, would be personalised. It would be individual to that learner and be in accordance with their needs. If their needs were set out in a statement of special educational needs, the learning and support agreement would clearly have to reflect that. I hope that that is helpful.
	The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) asked a number of questions about learning and support contracts. I would say to him—the point reflects again on the subject of young people with special educational needs—that the process, in the end, is more important than the document. I think everyone agrees that is important that there is negotiation and that the young person is involved so that both parties—the commissioner of the education in the form of the local authority and the recipient of that learning and support—understand the deal.
	Our amendment puts emphasis on what has to happen, while my recollection of the hon. Gentleman's amendment was that there was more emphasis on signing the document. I know that that distinction appears to be like dancing on the head of a pin, but it is quite important. The hon. Gentleman asked whether we would use the document before enforcement, and whether enforcement would never be used when a person had unmet support needs.

Jim Knight: I think that it is possible for a local authority, if someone has particular support needs, to sequence things so that those support needs are addressed. For example, if someone was suffering from addiction and it would clearly be impractical and inappropriate to compel them to try to take part in some kind of learning until the addiction problems had been dealt with and treated, the learning and support agreement could specify the sequence of support followed by learning. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman. I referred in my opening remarks to activity agreements, and to some extent they reflect that scenario.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about reporting. I think that I said that that would happen by 2016, so that is the time scale. I also said that we wanted to be able to reflect on the experience of the first year, so we are saying that there would be a report in 2016. He asked whether anything would stop a fundamental review following that review. Clearly, the review would be open-minded, and so if things were found that did not work, we would have to set out how we would put them right.
	The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) asked many fundamental questions about the Bill that we debated at appropriate length on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report, and equally so in the other place. I am sure that he will excuse me for a relatively brief response because the arguments have been put time and again. The costs to which he referred are in the impact assessment, which was updated after the Bill's passage through the other place, so he can read up on them. Although the economic costs of raising the participation age over and above 90 per cent. are about £766 million annually per cohort, the total economic benefit is projected as more than £1.5 billion for each cohort of young people to whom the measure applies. In essence, the calculation of a net economic benefit of £2.4 billion for a £766 million cost is at the heart of why we are introducing the measure so I reiterate the point. It substantially enhances the life chances of a young person to carry on learning until the age of 18, and to achieve at least level 2 qualifications, ideally level 3 and beyond, but it is also for the good of the nation. If we are to compete economically with the newly emergent economies, as Sandy Leitch pointed out in his report a couple of years ago, we need to raise the general level of skills in the UK. Keeping people learning is part of our effort to raise the level of skills.
	I have to tell the hon. Gentleman and his party, of which he is the only representative in this place, that we have to make the difficult decision—it is not easy—of reinforcing with compulsion all the engagement, the new qualifications and everything else we are doing to encourage, cajole and persuade young people to carry on learning until the age of 18. If we do not make that decision, when will we reach the position of close to 100 per cent. participating? That is what young people need. Those who do not participate are the ones who most need to participate. It is a basic issue of social justice that the most disadvantaged are the most unlikely to participate. If we are not serious enough to support compulsion, when will that participation happen? With all due respect, I put it to the hon. Gentleman and to his friend, as he described the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart), that unless they are serious about compulsion and unless they support these enforcement measures, it ain't gonna happen for the young people about whom the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) spoke so passionately and eloquently on Third Reading and whom the Bill will serve.
	I noted the comments of the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness—that he regards the Bill as an attack on liberty. Obviously, it is unfortunate that he regards the Bill in that way and I hope it is not the view of the whole of his party, because I think the Bill is an incredibly progressive piece of legislation for all the reasons I have just set out. The hon. Gentleman tried to talk down diplomas, a bit like his hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), but we have deliberately started on the basis of quality, not quantity. The hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness and I had a discussion in the Corridor a couple of weeks ago about whether he had time to see diplomas being taught and learned. At that point, he had not had time to do so. I do not know whether he has had time since then to see how excited young people are and how much teachers enjoy teaching diplomas, but I commend him to do so. We look forward to the numbers studying diplomas expanding on the basis of quality until the entitlement in 2013.

Jim Knight: Certainly, we are taking steps to ensure that diplomas are a good option for young people right from the word "go", that they are taught, and will continue to be taught, on the basis of quality, and that they will continue to be appropriate for young people. When I have visited and talked to people studying for a diploma, and their teachers, I have heard nothing but praise for how well they are working in practice.

David Laws: I would like briefly to welcome the 180-degree U-turn in Government policy reflected by the amendments, and to pay tribute to my colleagues in another place who were more convincing than the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) and myself.
	According to the Government's explanation of the amendments, they decided that the case for changing from the status quo was not compelling. As the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton mentioned, I would have thought that the evidence we took in the consultation sessions at the beginning of the Committee's proceedings was fairly clear in making the argument against those changes given that a number of outside bodies gave evidence to say that the changes were unnecessary.
	As well as drawing attention to this satisfactory U-turn, can the Minister explain what changes he hopes to implement to improve the communication between his Department and the independent schools sector. We have heard from the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton that that communication has been extremely effective up until now, but it is clear that there are major weaknesses in such communication. Not only was part of the sector taken by surprise by the changes, but if they had been consulted on in a more serious manner, we might have avoided the protracted debates and time-consuming processes that we have gone through in recent months.

Jim Knight: The White Paper was drawn up in the context of ensuring that we improved the quality of alternative provision. How that provision was registered came to light in the summer as we sought to implement the White Paper and as we prepared for the announcement of 12 pilots in October in order to develop new and innovative forms of alternative provision. I make no apology for wanting to drive forward whatever sort of vehicle the hon. Gentleman may propose to ensure that vulnerable young people are educated in registered provision that can be properly inspected, and to ensure that that education is of the appropriate quality.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) raised some issues about transitional provisions and the amendments that deal with them. The new clause that amendment No. 150 would insert are intended to provide for the seamless continuity of the law, a phrase that my hon. Friend used about actions begun but not completed under the existing regulatory regime. The purpose is to prevent unnecessary delays and complications in dealing with on-going cases from arising. Clause 151 contains a power to make specific transitional provisions, if necessary. A specific transitional provision would trump the general continuity provision in amendment No. 150.
	Amendment No. 151 is intended to provide for the seamless continuity of the register of independent schools in England. The existing register is kept under section 158 of the Education Act 2002. Clause 80 provides for the new register of independent educational institutions, which will include the existing register and any part-time providers. As we have just discussed, they will be registered under clause 77.
	My hon. Friend asked about an hiatus with respect to amendment No. 152. I can assure him that there will be no hiatus. As soon as the Bill comes into force, the amendment will allow us to ensure that that transfer of responsibility takes place. We will lay the regulations before the new legislative regime comes into force. Amendment No. 150(6) would grant the power to make the detailed relevant provision. I hope that I have answered my hon. Friend's questions.
	I hope that my other comments have dealt with the queries of the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws). I wish to add that the relationship with the Independent Schools Council is important. It inspects many independent schools—

Jim Knight: Indeed. The Independent Schools Councils represents many independent schools. We have a good relationship with many independent schools and I was pleased to visit, for example, Epsom college, last week to mark its sponsorship of Lambeth academy. It joins the United Learning Trust as a sponsor of Lambeth academy and will help the academy to develop its sixth form. That is a positive step for independent schools working with state-maintained schools.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and for the work that he did in Committee, as well as his ongoing work to protect children with special educational needs. We will of course keep the efficacy of the measures under review.
	As I was saying, regulations will require that when a child has a statement of special educational needs, the local authority must be invited to review meetings and informed of the outcome. With those important safeguards, we are confident that the requirement for pupils to attend off-site provision may not be imposed for longer than is reasonably necessary to improve the pupils' behaviour. I commend the amendments to the House.

Gordon Marsden: I acknowledge the thoughtfulness with which the hon. Gentleman has presented his case, both in Committee and tonight. Is he concerned that in some cases, referrals of children in the circumstances he described are currently to pupil referral units? In some cases—I am choosing my words very carefully—those units may not be adequate to the purpose of achieving the behavioural changes that the pupils need.

Rob Marris: I welcome the effective abolition of the mandatory key stage 3 test. That was long overdue, and the Government have done well.
	I want to focus on amendment No. 209, which amends part of section 74 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006. The 2006 Act itself would amend part of section 88 of the Education Act 2002. There are amendments to amendments, but as the Minister said, section 74 of the 2006 Act is not in force two years after its passage. Yet tonight we are amending it. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend can explain in a little more detail—not exhaustive detail, which I am sure he could if he wished to—how it has come to pass that an Act passed by the House two years ago to amend an Act that was passed four years before it is not yet in force, although tonight we are amending it.

Paul Burstow: My hon. Friend is correct: we have seen investment in a much-needed fountain at the front of the hospital. I am sure that it has been uplifting to the spirits of many of our constituents who have passed through its doors, although they would probably have preferred to see investment in the buildings.

Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He encourages me to stray slightly beyond the borders of the London borough of Sutton, which I am loth to do. I am sure his constituents have noted his intervention in the debate and the significant points he has made on their behalf.
	I have a couple of not such good news stories. A point was raised with both my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam and me by one of his constituents about the standard of care received by her elderly relative when she was in St. Helier hospital. Apparently my hon. Friend's constituent was asked by nurses whether she lived locally and when she confirmed that she did, she was asked to go home and get some pillows for her relative as there was a shortage in the hospital. Given that the funding the Government have provided the NHS has increased to the extent it has, which we admit, why is it still the case that some of the basics—the fundamentals of care—have still not been addressed as we would like? The constituent described the care received by her elderly relative in hospital and it is not something that any of us would feel comfortable about if our relatives had experienced it. I cannot refer to the case in more detail because I have not checked whether my hon. Friend's constituent would be happy for me to mention anything more specific. None the less, some of the fundamentals have not been addressed.
	Again on the negative side, my hon. Friend referred to the de-merger. As he said, it could delay proceedings further, but what is more fundamentally dispiriting is that it is a recognition of the fact that the trust never succeeded in getting the Epsom and St. Helier hospitals and their consultants to work together effectively.
	My final point is a Sutton issue, albeit not specifically or solely, so I hope that the Minister will have been briefed about it. It relates to the Henderson hospital, a matter that my hon. Friend and I have discussed with a succession of Ministers for months, if not years—it is ongoing. The fundamental issue, which has not been picked up by the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope), who has most recently responded to us, is that an assessment of the effectiveness of the therapeutic model at the Henderson has still not been carried out. The Government say that they have looked at whether there has been replication of the model—there has—yet the proposal is to cancel or abolish it without anyone having looked at whether it is effective. The Department of Health say that the therapeutic model has not proved itself because there is no evidence and that, because there is no evidence, we have to get rid of it. However, if anyone had been able to obtain some evidence, it might have confirmed that the therapeutic model was perfectly viable and the right approach.
	I may have surprised the Minister with that point, but I hope that he can write to my hon. Friend and me to confirm that when the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence considers at an international level the appropriateness of models such as the Henderson, it will look at the Henderson and identify hospitals and communities internationally that are doing similar things. That will confirm once and for all whether that type of therapeutic approach for people with personality disorders can work. At the moment the work has not been done, so it would be entirely wrong for the Government to get rid of that therapeutic model. The Minister may say that he is not responsible for that work, but I am sure that he would like in-depth research into the effectiveness of the model. I conclude on that point, but as my hon. Friend said, I hope we shall hear good news about the "Better Healthcare Closer to Home" project and that the team's proposal will be endorsed by NHS London, the Department of Health and eventually the Treasury so that the development can take place.

Ben Bradshaw: I congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on securing the debate. I appreciate the comments that he and the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) have made.
	I begin by paying tribute to the NHS staff in and around Sutton for their hard work and dedication, as a result of which, and the Government's investment in the health service, the hon. Gentlemen's constituents are receiving better health care than ever. Waiting times are at record low levels, life expectancy and other health outcomes are higher than they have ever been and with more than half the hon. Gentlemen's GP surgeries now offering extended hours, it is easier to see a GP in Sutton than ever before. The latest annual report into NHS performance by the independent health watchdog the Healthcare Commission said that both the primary care trust responsible for organising services in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and his local hospitals have improved on their performance of last year.
	As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, however, health care can never stand still. With advances in medical technology and treatment, the NHS has constantly to examine how it can best provide services to meet the needs and expectations of the public. There is also, as he understands and acknowledged in his speech, a long history to the debate over the best way to organise services in south-west London.
	We are now at the stage where proposals have at last been agreed, as the hon. Gentleman also graciously acknowledged. The proposals are supported not only by all the PCTs and acute trusts in the area that have an interest, but by the local Members of Parliament, with whom I have had discussions about the issues on a number of occasions in the past, and they have been unanimously supported by the local overview and scrutiny committees—the local government representatives who scrutinise local health proposals and, if they feel the need, object to them.
	The local needs, local health review launched jointly by Epsom and St. Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust and the London strategic health authority will consider whether there are better ways of managing the two hospital sites, as the hon. Gentleman outlined, and better ways for the trust to meet the diverse health needs of his local communities. It will look at how it can ensure that patients access better services locally, and that the trusts continue to improve standards of care and meet their statutory obligations, while recruiting and retaining adequate staff and maintaining their continued professional development.
	The review is not exclusive to the trust and the London SHA. It involves three other partner organisations: Sutton and Merton primary care trust, Surrey PCT and the South East Coast strategic health authority. The organisations should be commended for working together in an effort to reach a workable solution that should meet the needs of the populations that they all serve; that is not always easy, when local considerations come into play. The local needs, local health review will be run by a project board, which will be made up of executive and non-executive directors from the five partner organisations and chaired by the London SHA. A project team of senior managers from the partner organisations will support the project board. The team will be led by a project director, who will report directly to the trust.
	It is hoped that the project board will meet in December for the first time. One of its first tasks will be to engage staff and volunteers in the review process to ensure that their concerns and views are taken into account. The project board should be in a position to deliver a formal report by the end of spring 2009. That should allow sufficient time for the review to take place, while the uncertainty surrounding the future of the two hospitals is resolved as quickly as possible. Of course, I understand the desire of the hon. Members for Sutton and Cheam and for Carshalton and Wallington to make rapid progress, but I hope that they understand that it is important to get things right, rather than move quickly to make changes that one might later regret.
	As the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam said, the "Better Healthcare Closer to Home" strategy is linked with the plans for Epsom and St. Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust. The strategy is led by Sutton and Merton PCT, in partnership with Epsom and St. Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust. Its aim is to reshape the whole health service in Sutton and Merton, so that it provides better quality health care, designed around the needs of local people.
	The programme proposes to create integrated health care services, based in a number of local care centres that are supported by a local acute hospital that provides core secondary services. The outline business case, referred to by the hon. Members for Sutton and Cheam and for Carshalton and Wallington, was submitted by Sutton and Merton PCT to NHS London on 23 October. It is a complex programme, comprising a number of projects, the largest of which, as the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam acknowledged, is the £152-million first phase of redevelopment of St. Helier hospital. Other projects include local care centres in the following locations: Nelson hospital, costing £19 million; St. Helier hospital, costing £15 million; and Wilson hospital, costing £10 million. There will also be an intermediate care centre on the Wilson hospital site, costing £12 million.
	In total, the projects for which approval is sought from the SHA have a capital value of £208 million. In addition to the suite of projects that I have just outlined, there are a further two—a local care centre at Wallington and an urgent care centre on the St. Helier site—with a combined capital value of £18 million. As I am sure that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam will appreciate, the assessment of all those projects has to be thorough, and the analysis must be robust. Capital advisory staff at the London SHA will collate responses and questions from the project board, and they will be sent to the PCT and trust in December. Subject to satisfactory responses by the trust and PCT to the questions raised, NHS London will take the case through its approval process in January 2009.
	Assuming that all goes to plan, and the proposals are approved by the SHA and my Department, the proposed timetable is as follows: the Wallington local centre should open in 2011, the Nelson and Wilson local care centres and the Wilson intermediate care centre will open in 2013, and the St. Helier local care centre and phase 1 of the site redevelopment will open in 2016. That timetable allows time for the development of detailed plans for final approval, the production and approval of full business cases for each element of the project, including Treasury approval for the St. Helier site, and the construction and commissioning of the buildings.
	The hon. Gentleman reminded me of his interest in a possible fifth local care centre, to be sited on the Sutton hospital site. I understand that the PCT is in preliminary discussions with the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust about possible options for the development of a different type of health facility on that site. Again, I hope that the hon. Member will appreciate that all the interested parties want to make sure that the proposals meet the needs of the local community, and that we provide first-class, sustainable services in surroundings that are fit for purpose and represent the modern, high-quality NHS.
	The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington will have to forgive me; I was not briefed on the issue of the Henderson hospital site. However, I will ensure that he gets a response on the subject from my fellow Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Phil Hope), who is responsible for mental health matters. On the complaint that he mentioned about services provided at Epsom general hospital—

Ben Bradshaw: The hon. Gentleman is right that any organisation of services has to take access into account, and national guidelines will be laid down to ensure that that happens. However, the decision as to how best that is done on the ground is taken by the local health service. If there are fundamental and comprehensive changes to how services are organised in any particular area, it is open to him, or to the local councillors in that area, to raise objections through the overview and scrutiny and independent reconfiguration process, and I encourage them to do so if they are concerned about it. As the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam knows, the issues to do with the provision of these services are for his local health trust to resolve, and I encourage him and other hon. Members with an interest to engage in that process.
	The hon. Gentleman raised a problem in part of his constituency about density as regards the provision of GPs. I will have a word with the primary care trust about that, but I urge him to maintain the pressure on it. It is important that PCTs take GP access seriously to ensure that no members of the public are disadvantaged by a shortage of GPs in a particular area. As I am sure that he will appreciate, overall investment in primary care, as in all health services, is increasing year on year. That is the responsibility of PCTs, which will now be measured and ranked, not least on how they provide these services to deliver them in a proper and fair way.
	I hope that this debate has gone some way towards reassuring the hon. Gentleman that the proposals for Epsom and St. Helier, and for local care developments as part of "Better Healthcare Closer to Home", are moving forward. NHS London has advised me, in response to another question that he raised, that "Better Healthcare Closer to Home" and the local needs, local health review are unrelated. One does not depend on another, the first being about service development and the second being about organisational management arrangements. The local needs, local health review should have no significant impact on any aspect of "Better Healthcare Closer to Home". I am meeting the chief executive of NHS London tomorrow, and I will ensure that she is aware that this debate has happened. Matters are still ongoing in relation to the local needs, local health review. Any decisions taken about the future of Epsom and St. Helier, whether it remains as one trust or becomes two separate trusts, will be subject to consultation, and, as the hon. Gentleman asked, the views of local people will be considered before any final decisions are made.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes to Nine o'clock.